Slashdot Mirror
Military Robots to Gain Advanced Sight
coondoggie brings us a NetworkWorld report discussing iRobot's plans to include Laser Radar technology in their military robots. Quoting:
"Specifically the robot-maker is licensing Advanced Scientific Concepts' 3-D flash Ladar which uses laser beams to scan and process targets. The system has the ability to create a virtual 3D picture of an entire area. IRobot ... believes the technology will provide new navigation and mapping capabilities for future generations of robots and unmanned ground vehicles and pave the way for autonomous vehicles to lead convoys into dangerous territory, search contaminated buildings for casualties, or enable bomb squads to safely investigate suspicious objects."
Maybe iRobot will put this into their Roombas and allow us to get rid of some of the IR gates that they use now. I don't know how many times I've stepped on one of them after they migrate to the center of the room in the dead of night.
Also, does anyone else find it disturbing that they also make military robots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz5cl131KTk
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Well I, for one, welcome our new Natalie Portman scanning Robot Overlords, with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads, all the way from Soviet Pittsburgh.
"He Who Dares Wins"
In Skynet Russia, Roomba vacuums you.
I'd figure there also are a lot of civil applications for this technology? Contracting, driver-less cars, game-development? Oh, the fun we'd have.
They're going to have lazer beams attached to their freggin heads?
pave the way for autonomous vehicles to lead convoys into dangerous territory
So they're saying that artificial intelligence is finally just around the corner (literally and figuratively)?
Oh, yeah, complaining about wasting our money on war is just "flamebait"
Lose money? Ha.
The US made buckets of money in WW2 for example, it emerged as a world superpower as a result, with more money than a thing with lots of money. Wars require resources that have to be manufactured. Manufacturing those goods makes the companies money, and people get jobs, which gives them money. This helps the economy grow.
I'm not especially pro war, as in you wouldn't catch me joining up, but I am aware of the economic benefits it can bring.
The only time it doesn't is if your country is pwned. Even then its no all bad.
Japan has no military force beyond that required for self defence, and a small navy. That saves them a lot, and they got tons of money from the US post war to rebuild. Same for Germany. Its rebuilding was pretty much funded by the US. Same for the UK, which rebuilt using American money. The resultant trade links and diplomatic relationships have served the US well over the years.
Now the US is pouring money into Afganistan and Iraq. Tht might not be so good for the US fiscally right now, but it may pay off eventually.
Actually, the Military-Industrial complex wants to reap greater harvests from war.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I was pretty sure the word "unmanned" was used mentioned, as well as the idea that these devices would go where it was too dangerous for humans to go. Back to detective classes for you!
I hate printers.
This is a big step forward. I know this technology. Back in 2004, when we were putting our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle together, I went down to Advanced Scientific Concepts in Santa Barbara to see the thing. Back then, they had a prototype that worked, but it was on an optical bench (one of those big plates with screw holes to which you attach optical components), nowhere near ready to go on a vehicle. It was just too early. We had to go with SICK rotating-mirror line scanners, like everybody else. But I was convinced it was the right direction to go, and I dragged a venture capitalist who had some underperforming photonics companies down there to see the thing. He didn't want to fund them, because they were too far from a consumer product; the near term market was DoD-only.
ASC kept working, and by 2006 they had working portable prototypes. By 2007, you could buy a LIDAR about the size of a large-format camera for about $100,000. Now they've downsized it further.
Unlike the laser scanners with spinning mirrors or sensors, which is what everyone else uses, this technology has no moving parts. The system has two main components - a pulse laser with diffusing optics, and a detection and timing IC with one LIDAR receiver per pixel. Neither of these is inherently expensive in quantity. It may take a while to get this down to webcam prices, but $1000 is a reasonable near-term target.
It's amazing that this can be done in an eye-safe way, since this approach is subject to the radar equation - returned power decreases as the fourth power of the distance. But the detectors can be made good enough. Some of their more sensitive detectors use a photomultiplier tube technology, like a night vision system. Night vision systems use a photoelectric detector plate - when a photon hits it, an electron pops out. Electric fields are used to accelerate the electron, which then hits one of the electron detectors on a specially designed IC. Photomultipliers have been around for decades, and can detect single photons. The neat thing about the photoelectric effect is that it's at the atomic level, and happens in picoseconds. So it can be used as a light amplifier for a time-of-flight LIDAR.
The current generation of compact sensor is 128x128 pixels at 30Hz. The sensors are currently smaller than the lasers, but for smaller robots where you need only 10m of range or so, a smaller laser can be used.
This is the sensor that will make automatic driving commercially feasible.
Isn't it called LiDAR ?
I'd have to question your "returned power decreases as the fourth power of the distance" claim.
:P
This is true with radar, yes, because your radar beam increases spatially in two dimensions on the way to the target, ping at a point source, then diffuses again in two dimensions from there.
With lidar, you have a coherent focused beam on the way there. Lasers are generally considered to not lose any significant power over distance in a vacuum. You still have the ping, or reflection event, at which point you'll no longer have coherent, focused light, and the return trip will indeed be subject to the two-dimensional decrease in power.
Hence lidar is subject to the inverse square law, not the inverse fourth-power law.
and as a brief aside, I did some research with nasa in what seems to be a similar field. We were evaluating commercial off the shelf "range imager units", which are effectively the same thing as described here, only with an array of phased-intensity IR led's instead of a laser, as with a laser, you actually have to scan a scene. That's the difference between lidar and range imaging. judging from the extremely light details in the article and being too asleep to do any further research of my own, i say this seems exactly like what they're doing. using COTS stuff that's been around for years (and quite small, and available commercially, since at least 2005), only they claim to be using a laser light source. I don't get it. they claim there is no moving parts, there is no scanning mechanism to flood the scene with a single laser beam, one point at a time. they allege that a single laser beam paints an entire scene with no moving parts. i call bs, unless that's one wide, wide laser beam. perhap's it's just laser diodes, and then the whole idea is -exactly- like the range imagers like i worked with years ago.
also, wtf is Ladar? it's Lidar, idiots
The US didn't become successful because it won the 2WW. It won the 2WW because it was already on the way to become successful. Oh, and the russians helped a lot, too.
Fleur de Sel
War is a great motivator for people to do things, which can force an economy to produce when it's failing, especially if due to labor/management conflicts or disorganization rather than supply chain problems (like no resources or investment money to buy them). It also literally destroys your competition. If you emerge as the source for rebuilding, it can create demand, which can multiply in return if you have enough capital left to invest in growing the destroyed areas' own production, which can repay your investment at interest. War also lets the victor specify the loser's economy, and often the economy of the allies dependent on your helping them recover (eg. the US required Europe to switch from local coal to imported oil to get money from the Marshall Plan). And of course the winner can steal all the booty from the loser.
But all of that has to count against the destruction of capital, and therefore wealth, that is the main activity of war. And count against the destruction of the war materiel capital itself, like the bombs, bullets, fuel, planes, boats, tanks, trucks... all of which consumed wealth to produce, and create nothing, but themselves are destroyed in the process.
None of the upside is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all of the downside. Those countries aren't going to be growing into big customers for American industry, because their people hate us now. They'll be much better customers for our competitors, especially China, and probably Russia, which are also their neighbors. Sure, Iraq's oil is booty, but even if American oil corps get it, that's not good for "the" economy: it's good for the American oil corp economy, which is so multinational and crony that it doesn't really help the vast majority of Americans. In fact, it helps the oil corps steal from us.
The US went through a serious recession for several years after victory in WWII. It went through another one after defeat in Vietnam. The Iraq and Teror wars are doing nothing but damage to the overall US economy, and show no sign of any reason for benefit, outside a small crony group like Exxon/etc, Halliburton, Blackwater, all of which offshore their profits and don't even pay taxes on them.
"War is good for the economy" is one of the Big Lies. Unless you're in the war business itself. Which we're not. The rest of us are casualties.
--
make install -not war
I'd have to question your "returned power decreases as the fourth power of the distance" claim. ...
With lidar, you have a coherent focused beam on the way there.
Not with a flash LIDAR. There's one big broad flash spread by a beam spreader, not a mechanically scanned narrow beam. I'm amazed that it works over substantial distances. There aren't that many photons coming back per pixel. They don't spread the beam very wide; 1 to 9 degrees is typical for the longer ranged units. At shorter ranges, a wider beam can be used. The detectors have to be really good. They use GaInAs, not PIN diodes. The semiconductor device physics behind this thing is impressive.
I know about the SwissRanger thing; it doesn't have enough range for outdoor operation, but it's a nice little package. That thing modulates an array of LEDs at 20MHz or so, then measures the phase shift of the returned signal in a detector array of about 10K pixels. That thing ought to sell for webcam prices, but it's made by hand in Switzerland and costs too much.
The original article posted to Slashdot doesn't say much; you have to check the ASC web site and read the papers to see how it works.
I, too, worked on the grand/urban challenges. At one of the post-competition conferences Ibeo (owned by SICK) claimed that they would be able to produce their 4-beam LIDARS (with builtin target tracking that works semi-OK in highway-type scenarios) for $300 by two years time. Of course the Ibeo ALASCAs and such still have moving parts and work in only specific situations, but they're getting pretty good.. or at least better.
Having said that, a *huge* problem with LIDARS (like RADARs or any other active sensors) in a military environment is that carrying a LIDAR is the same as carrying a homing device for any basic IR-targeted bomb/missile.
"Where's that convoy, Sam?"
"Put on your IR goggles and look for the huge disco light in the middle of the desert, Bob!"
"Wow, Sam, thats WICKED!"
So I'm not sure how they're addressing that, or if they're hoping for an application niche that doesn't deal with being shot at altogether.
FTA: future generations of robots and unmanned ground vehicles and pave the way for autonomous vehicles
This seems to make a clear distinction between "unmanned" and "autonomous". Back to reading comprehension for you.
Does anyone have some information regarding, how fast such sensor can be at the moment? Speaking in terms of scans per second. I used to work on a project dealing with a 3d laser scanner (although not in a military context ^^) and that one wasn't even close to being fast enough to sense and destroy a target before being blasted to pieces.
It would be harder than you think. The beam presumably would scan the area rather quickly, so your detector would only have microseconds of exposure time (at best) to determine the source location.
Also consider that most places we'd use this tech in are backwards enough that they can't afford a 1960's tech RPGs, let alone millions of electronically aimed laser-searching cannons for every home.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
...
Now the US is pouring money into Afganistan and Iraq. Tht might not be so good for the US fiscally right now, but it may pay off eventually. You seem to be glossing over the enourmous increases in National Debt that have gone hand in hand with every major military action starting with WWI.
WWI jumped the national debt from ~3 billion to ~25 billion
WWII ballooned the national debt even further to ~260 billion
The USA never payed off all the debt accumulated in WWII & it has only gone up since.
To claim that Afghanistan and Iraq might pay off in the future is delusional at best.
Yes, War grows the economy, but you'd have to be blind not to see that the economy is mortgaged to the hilt because of it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
New "ollywoo" blockbuster - Rise of the Roombas
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Yes, actives are just too visible. It doesn't matter much in urban environments, though; it's not like you can hide an Army truck driving through a town.
Magoo
Have gnu, will travel.
This seems to make a clear distinction between "unmanned" and "autonomous". Back to reading comprehension for you. It does make a distinction, but not the one you seem to believe it's making. The distinction is that unmanned ground vehicles as used by the military today are by and large not autonomous. In reading more about this technology in various reports, the desire is to use it in applications similar to those the DARPA Challenges presented. The vehicles will remain unmanned, but will no longer require the same level of influence exerted by external (human) controllers.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
It went through another one after defeat in Vietnam. Yes, the 1973 oil crisis, 16 months. Only partly caused by war spending.
Really, the rest of your point is rendered moot because all your supporting evidence is nonsense.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Stereo is useful for getting distance to nearby obstacles with edges. It's not that useful on uniform pavement (no edges to register), gravel (detail too fine), wet surfaces, etc. What you really get from stereo is depth information of varying quality across the image.
Stereo from motion is in theory more useful, since the baseline is much larger, but it's much harder to do. Humans don't r seally do stereo vision beyond a few meters; our eyes are too close together. Depth from motion is how we really resolve the world.
One of the neater ideas in stereo vision is the Triclops, three cameras arranged in a triangle. With three cameras, most of the ambiguities that occur with two cameras go away.
And then come back around a sixtieth of a second or so later to scan again, perhaps?
I don't read AC A human right
"Really, the rest of your point is rendered moot because all your supporting evidence is nonsense."
/cry.
"You like war. Now that's established, you're not worth listening to."
Thank you both for summarizing the level of political discourse this election season.
-Styopa
I tried discourse. But when someone is so stubborn about war that they can't even see the facts they just said themself, it's time to wind down the discourse. Because it's going nowhere.
Hopefully others can see the facts we exposed, and the failures of thoe arguments before it all crashed and burned. Practically no one changes their minds during these arguments, but I'd hope they have a chance to think again on the new info once they're safely away in private.
--
make install -not war
Having said that, a *huge* problem with LIDARS (like RADARs or any other active sensors) in a military environment is that carrying a LIDAR is the same as carrying a homing device for any basic IR-targeted bomb/missile.
IF you're looking 250 meters your flash LIDAR would get a return within 1.7 microseconds. If you create a 1.7 microsecond flash at a frequency of 10Hz you're only emitting 0.0017% of the time.
Let's say the light you pulse is as bright as a 100kW bulb (i.e. a thousand 100W bulbs). With that duty cycle it would be the equivalent of a 1.7 watt bulb. That ain't much for a missile to lock onto.
Just my $0.02.